Post by SmashCapps on Jan 27, 2016 15:17:44 GMT

If enough characters have non repetitive zero slams, it seems silly to not just remove the clause. It's going to be tough as people find every single way to try and push it and break it to still do rough things. If we wanna play and promote this game, its best to accept some of the problems it has and simply embrace them. They are part of what makes Shrek Super Slam what it is.

Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 16:23:02 GMT

It's almost an unenforceable rule in doubles, and also not as important since having a partner to break you out helps.

As for getting rid of the infinites clause all together, just no. Some characters can infinite a character with ONE move as long as they get a grab anywhere on stage. (Thanks, Soup Grabs.) The discovery of so many 0-slams has levelled out the tier list a lot but it seems unfair to give those characters with infinites a free pass for racking up damage when other characters have to perform more complicated combos.

Speaking of 0-slam, has anyone tried playing matches with the Slam growth lowered and a lower stock count?

i think with doubles we have a brawl situation, having a second player in the game gets rid of the bullshit other characters have.

Post by m0th64 on Jan 27, 2016 19:41:21 GMT

It's almost an unenforceable rule in doubles, and also not as important since having a partner to break you out helps.

As for getting rid of the infinites clause all together, just no. Some characters can infinite a character with ONE move as long as they get a grab anywhere on stage. (Thanks, Soup Grabs.) The discovery of so many 0-slams has levelled out the tier list a lot but it seems unfair to give those characters with infinites a free pass for racking up damage when other characters have to perform more complicated combos.

Speaking of 0-slam, has anyone tried playing matches with the Slam growth lowered and a lower stock count?

i think with doubles we have a brawl situation, having a second player in the game gets rid of the bullshit other characters have.

Except if you're RRH, in which case your stage control and projectile setups become arguably more bullshit in doubles.

On a more serious note: I think it's worth noting that some of these rules are leftovers from the pre-SitS era, when we were having our first recorded and streamed tournaments and didn't want people's first exposure to the competitive scene to be something like Gingerbread Man Grab Releasing for six minutes (admittedly, that Gingy infinite is pretty new, but it's the only infinite .gif I could find on short notice and demonstrates pretty well how "lame" some infinites in this game are). Now that the meta is starting to settle, I'd at least be open to testing out new rulesets at some point in the future.

Post by Rubbermaid on Jan 27, 2016 19:56:41 GMT

The game is a broken mess, and all the jank that comes with that was always going to be a concern. However, especially given the apparent prevalence of 0-SLAMS, the motivation for having infinites banned feels somewhat lost. If we actually want this scene to grow (which I believe to be the case, but I can never fully shake the feeling that this entire thing is an elaborate satire), then we have to cast away any opinions on the "correct" way to play the game and just play it as it was given to us. There's never anything at stake (we don't even hand out trophies apparently), and people are much more likely to want to get involved if they see us having fun instead of struggling and debating over how to make it competitive.

If we ever get to the point where people want to play for higher stakes, then they can start considering if they want to play under tighter constrictions. At the moment though I think it's just harmful for the meta and the community to police the game this tightly this quickly. Knowing how broken it is, I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of the infinites we know at the moment are actually escapable through some undiscovered mechanic.

Basically forcing the game to be competitive is just going to make it less fun and less popular than playing for fun and pushing the limits of what you can do.

Post by m0th64 on Jan 27, 2016 20:51:33 GMT

I'm open to the idea of banning RRH in teams if we test it for a few tournaments and it ends up being too broken, but at this point we haven't even had a real doubles tournament yet so who knows at this point. I'm not gonna ban it unless we have a basis to do so.

Post by Boasting Toast on Jan 28, 2016 3:23:48 GMT

I've been running away from the fear of enforcing rules for so long simply because I know everyone who plays now is cool enough to follow rules, but Capps is right. As much as I'd hate to see every match be neutral for 15 seconds until someone hits a soup and uses an infinite for the next 30 seconds, we'll look like a bunch of buffoons trying to turn this game into something it's not if we continue. I will be hosting netplay tournaments regularly to test different ruleset options as soon as I get my PC parts. If there's ever a serious enough set where we would want infinites banned, such as a money match or an invitational tournament where every match is streamed and monitored, we can get a referee, but as far as regular matches, infinites are gonna have to stay.

Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 6:42:23 GMT

I'm open to the idea of banning RRH in teams if we test it for a few tournaments and it ends up being too broken, but at this point we haven't even had a real doubles tournament yet so who knows at this point. I'm not gonna ban it unless we have a basis to do so.

But yeah I wasn't talking about a complete ban, i was talking about limiting each team to one rrh.

Considering SitS was the last tournament that happened and it was before even the discovery of Soup Grabs there's a lot of fresh meta that needs to evolve in the competitive scene. Bringing infinites in will reduce the game to a single grab taking a stock. This isn't the case with at least some 0-Slams since they require open space, level ground or a specific character orientation to work, as well as more precise inputs.

Any methods of avoiding infinites, be it if we ever work out DI or reverse-Soup Grabs or some other technique, would also work for avoiding 0-Slams and would be worked on and discovered anyway. If these techniques are found to make infinites no-so-infinite then so be it.

For the time being, however, I don't believe infinites are going to do anything but slow the development of the meta and make the game less interesting to play and watch.

Post by m0th64 on Jan 29, 2016 21:34:49 GMT

One thing that should still be banned even if we do end up legalizing infinites is trapping the opponent in a loop to run the clock down, like how Wobbling past a certain percent is banned in Melee. After you fill your Slam meter you should have to stop the infinite. I'm sure this kind of goes without saying but I felt the need to put it out there anyway just to be clear.

Also: Something like infinites banned in top 8 only, maybe? Since it would be feasible to ref that and those would presumably be the most significant matches anyway?

When Slam is achieved there's that sort of wind blast effect that pushes the opponent away from you which I imagine would break most infinites. Certainly doing infinites after Slam is achieved would be penalized.

Post by m0th64 on Jan 30, 2016 3:05:49 GMT

When Slam is achieved there's that sort of wind blast effect that pushes the opponent away from you which I imagine would break most infinites. Certainly doing infinites after Slam is achieved would be penalized.

That wind blast effect has cost me Slams as Luna before. I'll combo them all the way to full Slam meter but sometimes the wind still creates an opening for them to punish and drain my meter if I'm not careful. Some infinites still work through it I think, though. Any ranged infinites and some dash attack infinites obviously still work. But yeah most don't.